I've said that near-death experiences (NDEs) are different than dreams in some ways, but similar in others. In this post, I want to discuss some of the similarities.
I'll begin, however, by noting that NDEs and dreams are mostly different. Chris Carter writes, "In one study, 94.7 percent of respondents stated that their NDE was not like a dream, but was very real (Ring 1980, 82-83)." (Science And The Near-Death Experience [Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions, 2010], note on p. 176) I've mentioned some of the differences in previous posts. For example, NDEs tend to involve heightened senses, such as sight and hearing, rather than senses that are diminished. NDEs tend to be more orderly. They're about subjects related to death and an afterlife, suggesting that the experiencer is aware of his context, as opposed to the wide diversity of contexts addressed in dreams. Beings encountered in NDEs generally seem to be appropriate in their setting, unlike many dreams, and they seem to behave in ways that make more sense.
Similarly, NDEs are different than hallucinations, out-of-body experiences, and other phenomena they're sometimes compared to. See, for example, Janice Miner Holden, et al., edd., The Handbook Of Near-Death Experiences (Santa Barbara, California: Praeger Publishers, 2009), pp. 193, 202, 249, etc., especially chapters 9 and 10.
Yet, there are some aspects of NDEs that are reminiscent of dreams. Some NDEs don't have any dream-like elements, but attributes reminiscent of dreams appear often enough among NDEs to constitute a widespread pattern.
What do we associate with dreams that distinguishes them from real life? People, objects, and events are out of place. Two individuals are together in a context in which they shouldn't be. You have a conversation with two relatives in a dream, at a time when one of them is dead and the other one is living, but the conversation is set in an earthly context, not a context like the afterlife. The individuals shouldn't be together, but they are together in the dream. Or there's an oversized animal or some other creature that doesn’t exist in the real world context that the dream corresponds to. A journey that would take an hour in real life takes five seconds in a dream. People say and do things they wouldn't say and do in real life. Etc. Terms like disorderly and irrational come to mind.
While such things occur frequently in dreams, they seem to be much less common in NDEs. But they are there to some extent.
I'll start with an ambiguous case. A near-death experiencer (NDEr) describes an encounter with his brother-in-law in a hellish aspect of an NDE that also had a heavenly element to it:
"I ran into my brother-in-law. I talked to him. He seemed to be working." (Michael Sabom, Light & Death [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1998], p. 171)
Would you expect to find somebody "working" in hell? Maybe the work is some sort of punishment, but it's also reminiscent of the sort of thing you'd encounter in a dream. You meet somebody who's doing something that seems inappropriate in the context in which you find him. The NDEr goes on to describe other aspects of his experience that are unusual, such as an admission by his guardian angels that he was taken to hell by mistake. They then take him to heaven. As I'll mention below, the theme of angels and other such beings making mistakes is common in NDEs, especially in particular parts of the world. This post is about dream-like aspects of NDEs, not inconsistencies from one NDE to another, but it's worth noting that Howard Storm is told, in his NDE, that angels don't make such mistakes. See the closing seconds of minute seven in the video here.
Cherie Sutherland describes the NDE of a seven-year-old, involving Jesus "wearing a red hat and having a round belly like Santa Claus". The girl also saw "people waiting to be born" (in Janice Miner Holden, et al., edd., The Handbook Of Near-Death Experiences [Santa Barbara, California: Praeger Publishers, 2009], p. 91). Sutherland describes another child's NDE that involved Jesus, but also reincarnation (p. 96). Neither a combination between Jesus and Santa nor a combination between Jesus and reincarnation makes much sense in an actual afterlife. They seem to make more sense in a context like a dream or hallucination.
Kenneth Ring refers to "frightening features" in otherwise heavenly NDEs (cited by Nancy Evans Bush, ibid., p. 65). And some NDEs are even more disorderly:
"Some of Ellwood's distinctions smash cherished preconceptions about NDEs, such as when she noted that 'we have not yet pinpointed the reasons why some are painful. Besides, some persons have had painful and radiant experiences in quick succession with no noticeable change of heart between them, and occasionally experiences will begin with peace and happiness then become painful, or vice versa' (95)." (Nancy Evans Bush, ibid., p. 76)
Note, especially, the qualifier "with no noticeable change of heart between them".
NDErs sometimes have a paranormal knowledge of the recent death of individuals whose death they shouldn't have known about through their normal bodily senses. NDEs seem to be generally accurate regarding who should be encountered in the afterlife and who shouldn't be. People encounter deceased relatives and deceased pets, for example, but not ones who are still alive. However, they do sometimes report seeing individuals who shouldn't be there, people who are still living (Janice Miner Holden, et al., ibid., p. 114). In other words, a heavenly NDE might involve seeing a relative in heaven who's still alive on earth at the time of the NDE.
As I mentioned earlier, the theme of mistakes in the afterlife, such as mistakenly sending somebody to hell rather than heaven or removing a person's soul to the realm of the dead too early, is common in NDEs in some parts of the world. Chris Carter explains that NDEs in India tend to be "more bureaucratic". He goes on:
"Messengers would sometimes escort the dying patient to a clerk, who would then consult some records and announce that a mistake had been made! The bureaucratic bungling would be corrected, and the person would then be returned to his body." (Science And The Near-Death Experience [Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions, 2010], p. 138)
That scenario seems to be common in Indian NDEs. According to Carter, more than 60% of the Indian NDEs in the studies he's discussing feature a person's being "sent back because of a mistake" (p. 140). Not only does the prevalence of such mistakes seem unrealistic and dream-like, but the tendency for such features to be common in one part of the world and not another raises suspicions as well.
More examples could be cited, but I think these are sufficient to make my point. Though NDEs are generally different than dreams, they often have dream-like features. How do we explain that?
NDErs frequently report that their senses are heightened during NDEs. Their eyesight is better. Their hearing is improved. They have more of an awareness of what's happening around them. Maybe dream-like experiences would be heightened as well. While experiences like dreams and hallucinations that occur outside of near-death contexts tend to be highly unrealistic and easily distinguished from the rest of life, maybe they tend to be more realistic under the conditions in which NDEs occur. They occasionally have the sort of features that such experiences would have in other contexts, but they're generally more realistic.
It could be argued that some or all of the NDEs I've described above are highly objective experiences that reflect what the afterlife, or a precursor to it, is actually like. Maybe Jesus appeared with the body of Santa Claus in order to accommodate the girl who was having the NDE. Maybe those who go from hell to heaven or from heaven to hell for no apparent reason are experiencing both in order to teach them something. Maybe if we knew more about the individual or God's purposes in letting that person experience both heaven and hell, the person's experience would make more sense to us. Etc. It would be possible to offer such explanations for some or all of the NDEs that are like the ones I've described.
But the same could be done with dreams. Why should we prefer such explanations to the conclusion that the experiences are highly subjective and unreliable?
To appreciate the significance of these dream-like features of NDEs, it might be helpful to imagine what NDEs would be like without them. Wouldn't they be more credible if they didn't have characteristics like the ones I've described above? When these dream-like aspects of NDEs are combined with other considerations I've discussed in previous posts (the existence of better evidence for a Christian view of the afterlife, the inconsistencies among NDEs, etc.), it seems likely that NDEs have these dream-like features because NDEs are like a dream in terms of their objectivity.
I will comment more later as I have relatives in town. For now, just a thought or two.
ReplyDeleteJason ends with: "it seems likely that NDEs have these dream-like features because NDEs are like a dream in terms of their objectivity."
I guess I'm not sure what the significance of this would be, if it were true (I don't think it is a very good analogy, and I'll explain why below). God reveals himself in dreams multiple times throughout the Bible. It seems God speaks through all sorts of fallible and/or subjective modalities of experiences. And I don't see how it could be any other way. Even normal waking consciousness is fallible and is subject to the filter of our subjective interpretive framework, errors of perception, etc.
And that is the real problem I have with comparing NDEs to dreams in terms of their objectivity - it is vague and the same argument could be made for any type of conscious experience. But we all know that dreams and normal waking conscious experience differ in terms of objectivity. Same goes for dreams and NDEs. What shocks us about the NDEs is the same thing that helps us to determine objectivity under normal circumstances. If we have multiple eyewitness reports of a certain event, and details differ as they often do, we still are inclined to infer objectivity when it comes to any significant amount of core similarity in the reporting. Some have even argued that differences in detail raise the probability of the objective truth of the similarities.
Do we have such a significant multitude of people having dreams with similar narrative structure, themes, characters, spiritually-oriented messages, etc. Not even close. Similarly, the occurrence of these "out of place" events/characters in NDEs is really not very common at all. I have read 1,000s of NDEs and it is seldom that I come across these. When we do see them, it is often arguable to what extent they are significant. Take the Santa Claus/Jesus for instance. How much weight do we put in this testimony from a child? And did the child say Jesus had the appearance of Santa or just had a red hat and round belly like Santa? These are really worlds apart. By the end of the post, Jason enhances the similarities of Jesus and Santa by turning "wearing a red hat and having a round belly *like* Santa Claus" (something that could actually describe my own mother), to "Jesus appeared with the body of Santa Claus". We can see right here how these problematic aspects can be easily exaggerated. Maybe we should be troubled that a kid said a being they thought was Jesus had a belly and a red hat in an NDE. I'm not sure. I myself am skeptical of many attempts to even identify beings in NDEs, period.
In the 93 study on NDEs in South India by Pasricha that Carter cites and Jason refers to, only 13 NDEers were studied. This is a very small sample,so I'm not sure we should be all that impressed with the 60% figure. Further, just as it is apparently being assumed that their religious/cultural background influenced them to subjectively experience angelic messengers making mistakes and sending them back in their NDE, it coudl be the case that these same beliefs influenced their perception and interpretation of an objectively different phenomena, their memory of it, or simply their reporting of it.
ReplyDeleteBut there are other problems here. Look how Carter and Pasricha list this feature of the Indian NDEs:
"Sent back because of
a mistake; subject not
scheduled to die yet"
Well, if its simply the case that they were told "it wasn't their time" then there's no incongruity with multitudes of other North American NDEers who are told this by deceased relatives, angels, and God himself quite often. We can't lump "not scheduled to die" in with "told it was a mistake", total up these numbers, and then claim its a clear cultural feature.
One NDEer in this study, Gowramma, reports being taken to the god of the dead who "looked into the books and told the messengers, 'Send her back; she still has not completed her time'."
North American NDEers have been told the same, some have even had angels *convince* them that they must go back by showing them images of the living and that they are needed. Some are given choices, some see books opened, etc.
In their study, Kenchamma reports: "Four women came and carried
me along. They met a man while going (to the other realm) who asked those women, "Why are you carrying her? She has young children, return her
back." Again, this is not necessarily a mistake, but a matter of difference of opinion or knowledge amongst spiritual beings. NDEers reveal a hierarchy of authority and knowledge amongst heavenly beings in their experiences regularly.
Here is a summary of Pasricha and Stevenson's conclusions in their earlier 86' study, by Pasricha in the 93' study:
ReplyDelete"We had argued in that paper that the difference in features between the two cultures may be due to the effects of one's own beliefs regarding life after death and that some of the experiences may seem different in details of description but on closer examination, found to be similar in nature."
How often have we heard this regarding dream states?
Alex Dalton wrote:
ReplyDelete"I guess I'm not sure what the significance of this would be, if it were true (I don't think it is a very good analogy, and I'll explain why below). God reveals himself in dreams multiple times throughout the Bible."
If I identify somebody's experience as a dream, it isn't much of a response for you to point out that some dreams in the Bible are revelatory. If you think NDEs are comparable to revelatory dreams in the Bible, then you can make that argument. You haven't, and it isn't the subject I was addressing. I don't deny that some dreams are revelatory or that NDEs can be. But we would need evidence to that effect, as we have with the Biblical dreams in question.
You write:
"And that is the real problem I have with comparing NDEs to dreams in terms of their objectivity - it is vague and the same argument could be made for any type of conscious experience."
Only if the conscious experience has the attributes under consideration. Not every experience has those attributes, so I don't know why you refer to "any type of conscious experience".
You write:
"But we all know that dreams and normal waking conscious experience differ in terms of objectivity. Same goes for dreams and NDEs."
That's why I keep saying that NDEs are partly similar to dreams and partly different. In my post that started this thread, I mentioned that NDErs sometimes have paranormal knowledge, for example. I've made similar points in other threads. That's why I use terms like "roughly analogous", "somewhat similar", etc. and include references to objective aspects of NDEs.
It seems that you keep responding to my posts on NDEs with somebody else's viewpoint in mind. As if I haven't included the qualifiers I've mentioned, such as my frequent acknowledgments that NDEs have paranormal characteristics, that they're different than dreams in some ways, etc.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"If we have multiple eyewitness reports of a certain event, and details differ as they often do, we still are inclined to infer objectivity when it comes to any significant amount of core similarity in the reporting."
NDEs are highly inconsistent with one another. I've used the analogy of dreaming while partly awake to describe NDEs. The "core similarity" you refer to is so vague as to provide no basis for the sort of position I've been criticizing. I'm a conservative Evangelical who holds a traditional Evangelical view on issues like Christian exclusivism and the nature of Hell. I've said that I disagree with interpretations of NDEs that involve something like religious inclusivism, universalism, or the concept that almost everybody goes to heaven. Do you think the core of NDEs that you refer to supports any such concept? My position is that the core is something less than that and is consistent with traditional Evangelicalism. The issue isn't whether there's a core, but rather what nature the core has.
Since you keep objecting to my posts on NDEs, I think it would be a good idea for you to lay your cards on the table. What's your view of the afterlife, and what do you think NDEs prove about the nature of life after death?
You write:
"Similarly, the occurrence of these 'out of place' events/characters in NDEs is really not very common at all."
That doesn't give me much to go by. My opening post in this thread says that NDEs are generally different than dreams. You're responding by saying that dream-like attributes are "not very common at all". I don't know what sort of percentage you have in mind or how you think it relates to my position.
You write:
"I have read 1,000s of NDEs and it is seldom that I come across these."
I don't know what percentage you would associate with "seldom". I referred to a lot of phenomena within NDEs. For example, I referred to unlikely combinations, such as Jesus and reincarnation, and a lack of correspondence between a person's character and the type of NDE encountered. If you think such things occur seldom enough that their rarity is a problem for my argument, then explain why.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"Take the Santa Claus/Jesus for instance. How much weight do we put in this testimony from a child? And did the child say Jesus had the appearance of Santa or just had a red hat and round belly like Santa? These are really worlds apart. By the end of the post, Jason enhances the similarities of Jesus and Santa by turning 'wearing a red hat and having a round belly *like* Santa Claus' (something that could actually describe my own mother), to 'Jesus appeared with the body of Santa Claus'."
Or since I posted both descriptions, I didn't intend them to be read in the inconsistent manner you're suggesting.
And I have more to go by than what you're mentioning. In the surrounding context, Cherie Sutherland describes the child's view of Jesus as "even more unusual". She then makes the reference to Santa Claus. The reference to Santa may refer only to the stomach, but it seems to include the hat. If Jesus was wearing a Santa hat, don't you think that's dream-like? I do. If it was some other sort of red hat, then it's an odd and unfortunate coincidence that the hat just happened to be red (like Santa's), just happened to be on a figure with a Santa-like stomach, and just happened to be described in such a misleading way by Sutherland. And the child's NDE had other suspicious attributes, as I mentioned in my original post.
You write:
"We can see right here how these problematic aspects can be easily exaggerated."
Or how their problematic nature can easily be underestimated, as you've done.
You write:
"Maybe we should be troubled that a kid said a being they thought was Jesus had a belly and a red hat in an NDE. I'm not sure. I myself am skeptical of many attempts to even identify beings in NDEs, period."
It depends on the context. Sometimes people have discussions with the beings in question, are given information about those beings by other beings they encounter, make judgments about the beings based on the context in which they're encountered, etc. For example, if an Indian NDE has a particular sequence of events that a Hindu view of the afterlife would anticipate, then interpreting a being encountered within that sequence in light of Hindu beliefs makes more sense. It's not as though the NDEr merely saw a being and assumed the being was some entity within Hinduism. Rather, he encountered the being within a particular context that suggested a Hindu interpretation. An example that I've seen multiple NDE researchers mention is the Hindu expectation that a life review will involve the reading of a written record. Such readings occur often in Indian NDEs, in contrast to a lack of such life reviews in Western cases. Are we to believe that these Indian NDErs mistakenly thought their life review took the form of such a reading? How would so many people make such a similar mistake?
Most likely, the reason why NDEs seem so inconsistent is because they are highly inconsistent. The Indian NDEs really do contradict the ones in the United States, for example. People come away with contradictory religious implications, moral implications, etc. because the NDEs suggest such contradictions. They are contradictory. It would require a tremendous amount of false assumptions on the part of the NDEr, unfortunate coincidences, lack of foresight on the part of the beings who are encountered in the NDE, etc. in order for all, or even most, of the apparent NDE contradictions to be the result of the sort of misunderstanding on the part of the experiencer that you've suggested. If a lot of people in the United States think they see Jesus, whereas a lot of people in India think they see a Hindu god, I suspect that's because their experiences are largely dream-like, as I've argued.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"In the 93 study on NDEs in South India by Pasricha that Carter cites and Jason refers to, only 13 NDEers were studied. This is a very small sample,so I'm not sure we should be all that impressed with the 60% figure."
Carter refers to multiple Indian studies. The one you're citing is discussed after he makes the comments I cited about bureaucratic mistakes. In the paragraph you're referring to, Carter cites research in both northern and southern India.
You write:
"Further, just as it is apparently being assumed that their religious/cultural background influenced them to subjectively experience angelic messengers making mistakes and sending them back in their NDE, it coudl be the case that these same beliefs influenced their perception and interpretation of an objectively different phenomena, their memory of it, or simply their reporting of it."
As I said above, it would require a tremendous amount of such mistakes to account for all of the apparent inconsistencies among NDEs or even most of them. How would an NDEr get an incorrect impression that he was being told that a mistake had been made? And how likely is it that so many people would keep getting that same incorrect impression, on the same subject and in the same context, but much more often in India than in the United States, for example?
And I don't think the beings in the Indian cases tend to be "angelic" as that term is commonly defined in a place like the United States. In the book I cited above, Carter quotes one Indian NDEr's reference to "three person with curly hair" and "a fat man" who was "sitting on a bench and looking through some papers" (p. 138). Another Indian NDEr is quoted as referring to being "dragged" by these individuals, and she refers to one as "fat and had books in front of him" (p. 139). I doubt that the average NDEr in the United States has that sort of "angelic messenger" in mind.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"Well, if its simply the case that they were told 'it wasn't their time' then there's no incongruity with multitudes of other North American NDEers who are told this by deceased relatives, angels, and God himself quite often. We can't lump 'not scheduled to die' in with 'told it was a mistake', total up these numbers, and then claim its a clear cultural feature."
Carter refers to multiple Indian studies, and I'm going by his summary of them. He says that "mistakes" made by beings in the NDE occur "frequently" in India, and he says that this feature "contrasts especially with Western cases" (p. 139). It's possible that Carter is misrepresenting the data in the Indian studies he cites. Maybe the Indian cases are more similar to the Western ones than he suggests. But given Carter's tendency to harmonize NDEs and his apparent general reliability in reporting the NDE data, I would want more evidence that he's wrong than your comments provide. You're raising the possibility that he's wrong or that I've misinterpreted him, but you haven't shown that it's likely.
In another book I cited above, the one edited by Janice Miner Holden, et al., one of the chapters is written by Farnaz Masumian. She draws the same contrast Carter does between Indian and Western NDEs. She notes that "mistaken identity" is a "clear difference" between NDEs in India and America. She comments that there are "many" such Indian cases and that they're "frequent" (p. 161).
You write:
"How often have we heard this regarding dream states?"
Heard what? You quoted a reference to how some aspects of NDEs that seem different might be "similar in nature" upon "closer examination". How is such an observation supposed to be inconsistent with what I've argued?
Still with family today. Not much time to post. Wanted to say a couple things.
ReplyDeleteOn a more personal note: Jason, I am excited that you're treating NDEs and am learning from your posts. I love your research in general. I think you handle the data of whatever you research very responsibly, and often have some very creative insights and angles (same goes for many others at Triablogue, esp. Steve Hays). I don't mean to be annoying you with some of my disagreements, and I think I need to clarify some of my points. I apologize if I'm missing your point, confusing matters, etc. I'm rushing a bit and can't honestly say these days that I have very much clarity of thought for various reasons. I also tend to disagree with mostly everyone about everything, often to clarify my own thoughts on a matter. If you feel that my thoughts on NDEs are mostly unhelpful, let me know and I'll scram.
For now, let me just pursue one line of thought relative to the analogy of dreams.
I wrote:
"But we all know that dreams and normal waking conscious experience differ in terms of objectivity. Same goes for dreams and NDEs."
You responded:
That's why I keep saying that NDEs are partly similar to dreams and partly different. In my post that started this thread, I mentioned that NDErs sometimes have paranormal knowledge, for example.
Alex: Since we know dreams also sometimes have paranormal knowledge, how does this serve as a point of distinction for NDEs over dreams?
Alex,
ReplyDeleteI don't want you to go away. Like I said when I started posting on NDEs in April, I'm only in the beginning stages of researching the subject in more depth. You probably know a lot that I don't about NDEs. I've benefited from your posts on other subjects as well, and I'm sure other readers have.
Regarding dreams, I was referring to the most common dreams, what people normally associate with the term. In our last discussion, in the thread on hellish NDEs, I used the term "ordinary dreams" in one of my responses to you. If you include other types of dreams, like dreams used to communicate Divine revelation in the Bible, then the relationship between dreams and NDEs changes. You seem to be doing the same thing I'm doing when you comment that "we all know that dreams and normal waking conscious experience differ in terms of objectivity". That's true of the most common dreams, but why think that it's true of every type of dream, such as revelatory dreams in the Bible? Similarly, when near-death researchers distinguish between dreams and NDEs in terms of the heightened sense of sight and hearing in NDEs, for example, they're not denying that some dreams can have such features.
People are making different points and drawing different analogies in different contexts. Sometimes the point is that no type of dream we know of ever has a particular attribute. Other times, the point is that dreams tend to not have an attribute, even if they sometimes do. It can be difficult to discern just what point is being made at times. If I've been unclear in any of my dream references, then disregard my comments about dreams and focus on the larger point I was trying to make, if you can tell what it is. I probably should use qualifiers more often, like I did with the "ordinary dreams" comment in our last discussion.
In the thread where I began my recent treatment of NDEs, in April, I said that any comparison to dreams could be misleading and would have to be qualified. The comparison to dreams can be discarded if it becomes misleading or sidetracks a discussion too much. I don't have much concern for keeping the dream analogy. What's more important in the context of this thread is that NDEs often have features that raise doubts about their objectivity, like the features I've discussed above. Dreams often have such features as well, so dreams may be helpful in illustrating my point, but a comparison to dreams or a lengthy discussion about how NDEs and dreams are similar and different isn't necessary.
Cards on the table...
ReplyDeleteJason: I'm a conservative Evangelical who holds a traditional Evangelical view on issues like Christian exclusivism and the nature of Hell.
Alex: Fairly similar. I probably just am a little more tentative about those beliefs. I'm open to arguments for inclusivism, universalism, etc. - I just haven't seen any good ones. Also haven't seen any good arguments against the traditional notion of hell, so it is my default position. On exclusivism, I can't say I have spent enough time here. I think I waver between fully accepting it, and then sometimes embracing a kind of functional exclusivism. For example, maybe God wants us to preach the severity/finality of hell and necessity of Christ, but will ultimately surprise us all with his mercy. I can’t say I’ve thought these things through thoroughly.
Jason: I've said that I disagree with interpretations of NDEs that involve something like religious inclusivism, universalism, or the concept that almost everybody goes to heaven. Do you think the core of NDEs that you refer to supports any such concept? My position is that the core is something less than that and is consistent with traditional Evangelicalism. The issue isn't whether there's a core, but rather what nature the core has.
Alex: I think we both see subjective/unreliable aspects to the NDEs. You seem to fall more on the side of saying its more essential to the experience itself, and I seem to want to place it more in the experient. I don’t think NDEs support universalism, and for the very reasons you’ve already articulated so well (NDEs not being necessarily a revelation of the nature of the afterlife at all, hellish NDEs being downplayed, etc.). But, I will say, after having read so many of the accounts, I now think God is more loving and merciful than I had thought previously, and I am not as firm in my brand of exclusivism as I was before.
Jason: Carter refers to multiple Indian studies, and I'm going by his summary of them.
ReplyDeleteAlex: The other study referenced is Osis and Haraldsson's _At the Hour of Death_ and, contrary to what Carter says, is not really a study of NDEs as it came out only a year or two after Moody's seminal work, and the intro on the later editions actually states this. The majority of their cases were deathbed visions, which are NDEs only in a very broad sense. In all of their cases, the OBE is entirely absent, as is the "being of light". They are really just the waking visions of those who actually die, and while I think they are interesting and many are perhaps even veridical, they have a much higher likelihood of being hallucinations than what is now called the NDE (namely because we have obvious evidence for lots of activity in the brain, unlike many NDEs). My girlfriend's grandmother just died and reported deathbed visions of golden child-like angels dancing about the room, and running with her through a review of all the times they watched over her and her family.
Alex (old): "And that is the real problem I have with comparing NDEs to dreams in terms of their objectivity - it is vague and the same argument could be made for any type of conscious experience."
ReplyDeleteJason: Only if the conscious experience has the attributes under consideration. Not every experience has those attributes, so I don't know why you refer to "any type of conscious experience".
Alex (new): But conscious experience does have the attributes under consideration. People hallucinate or make errors of percepton in normal waking consciousness all the time. So why even use the dream analogy?
Jason: If Jesus was wearing a Santa hat, don't you think that's dream-like?
ReplyDeleteAlex: Depends on what it is about the hat that was Santa-like. Red hat? Not very dream-like IMO - just odd. Red cone-shaped hat with a white fluffy rim around the bottom, and a white ball at the tip? That's a Santa hat.
Alex,
ReplyDeleteI didn't see any of your June posts until this morning.
Concerning Indian cases, you dismiss one of Carter's sources by saying that many of that source's cases involve "a much higher likelihood of being hallucinations than what is now called the NDE (namely because we have obvious evidence for lots of activity in the brain, unlike many NDEs)". That's too vague of a criticism to overturn Carter's use of that source, and I've mentioned a few other sources that I've relied on to reach my conclusion. A "much higher likelihood" doesn't have much significance if the likelihood it's being compared to wasn't high to begin with. And the significance of "lots of activity" and "many" NDEs depends on how those terms are being defined. Carter addresses the idea that deathbed visions involve hallucinations (e.g., pp. 261-267). I don't think hallucinations offer much of an explanation of deathbed visions, even if they're better at explaining those visions than they are at explaining NDEs.
Regarding whether "any type of conscious experience" is comparable to dreams, you write:
"But conscious experience does have the attributes under consideration. People hallucinate or make errors of percepton in normal waking consciousness all the time."
You've changed your terminology from "any type of conscious experience" to "conscious experience". People do hallucinate, but they don't do so, or experience something similar, in every state of consciousness. And whether apparently erroneous aspects of NDEs involve "errors of perception" is one of the issues under dispute. If you're assuming the sort of error of perception in NDEs that you suggested earlier, then you'd have to argue for it rather than just assuming it.
On the NDE involving a Santa-like Jesus, you've only quoted part of what I said. I think the remainder of my earlier comments is a sufficient response to your latest reply on the subject.
You said:
"I think we both see subjective/unreliable aspects to the NDEs. You seem to fall more on the side of saying its more essential to the experience itself, and I seem to want to place it more in the experient….God is more loving and merciful than I had thought previously, and I am not as firm in my brand of exclusivism as I was before"
My earlier posts in this thread, as well as in the previous threads, address some of the problems with a view like the one you've described above. I don't know how you'd overcome those problems. I understand the difference between your view and mine, but I don't understand why you hold your view.
Jason: That's too vague of a criticism to overturn Carter's use of that source, and I've mentioned a few other sources that I've relied on to reach my conclusion.
ReplyDeleteAlex: I'm not sure about overturning anything. But pointing out that the majority of the cases in the study Carter refers to on Indian NDEs, were not in fact NDEs is sufficient to make me less inclined to trust any conclusions drawn from those studies. AFAIK, the jury is still out on exactly how many Indians had the culture/religion-specific type of NDEs Carter describes. The 20 or so I've read have problems of their own, and I don't consider that a very large number. Might be something worth looking into.
I'll order this book by Chris Carter today. If it's anything like its predecessors, then this book will certainly be worth reading.
ReplyDeleteIrene (Towing)